We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Liberty Toyota factually told its Illinois employees that their Florida counterparts were still waiting for a union contract three years after voting for union representation. According to the NLRB, this factual statement “effectively communicated” that if the Illinois employees voted in favor of the International Association of Machinists union, that they too would suffer years of delay and stagnation.

A dealership executive stated that any negotiations with the Illinois union would “start from scratch…everything goes to zero.” This factual statement has been used in thousands of union avoidance campaigns across the country. Only now is the NLRB alleging that such a statement is unlawful. According to the Board, the employer was not only warning of uncertainties in labor-management negotiations, but was threatening employees with a loss of their existing benefits.

While I am often surprised at the recent decisions coming from the NLRB, this one is appalling. Under the National Labor Relations Act, when a union is certified as the employees’ exclusive bargaining agent, all terms and conditions of employment are subject to negotiation. Employees’ current terms and conditions are not the starting point, or floor, of negotiating. Employees truly could end up with worse, better, or the same terms and conditions of employment after the collective bargaining agreement is ratified. For the Board to now claim that companies are not allowed to educate their workforce about this well-known maxim of collective bargaining is deplorable.

Related topic hubs

Compare jurisdictions: Employment: USA

“I find the articles on the Lexology newsfeed very relevant and up to date on a variety of topics of interest to my areas of practice. The authors are reliable and current on the topics about which they opine. Even when several law firms write on the same topic, I can often glean new viewpoints and perspectives from the different firms. The headings are also helpful because they briefly and accurately describe the topic and enable me to quickly and efficiently decide what I may or may not want to read in more detail."